House Publications

     It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

     [Members sang the national anthem]

    Mr. Speaker, first the Acadians were deported, and now they are being written out of history with the Prime Minister's blessing. That is one of the first things one notices upon watching the CBC's revisionist new series, Canada: The Story of Us.

    Even the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who tried to persuade us that John A. Macdonald was a feminist, a progressive, a Montreal Canadiens fan, and pals with Louis Riel, refrained from commenting on this dreck.

    In this new version of history, the French are a ragtag bunch of misfits, while the English are sharply dressed, cunning, and smart.

    This is not the story of us. Our history is still being written. This is the story of them, and neither Quebeckers nor Acadians have a place in the so-called multicultural Canada that the CBC wants to ram down our throats.

    The worst part is that the CBC paid for this so-called Canadian propaganda with our tax dollars.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a constituent from my riding whose hard work has made a difference in the lives of many in our community.

    Valerie Christie is a resident of Charleswood, and has always been willing to lend a helping hand, whether volunteering at her children's elementary and junior high schools, or at her church. She has distinguished herself through her work at the Westgrove Family Resource Centre, helping students improve their literacy and numeracy skills, and through her leadership with the Westdale community food bank.

    Valerie was justly awarded the Governor General Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers this past January. Valerie's passion to help others reflects the spirit of community in Charleswood. On behalf of the House of Commons, I would like to congratulate and thank Valerie for her years of service. Our community would not be the same without her.

    Mr. Speaker, each year, malaria kills an estimated 438,000 people. It remains the leading cause of death of children under five in Africa. Since 2007, Spread the Net has helped protect the lives of almost 32 million people by contributing to the delivery of over 15 million malaria preventing nets to families in Africa.

    I am proud to once again have the privilege to rise in the House, and speak about a great group in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

    Last month, Beaverly Elementary School in Prince George took up the Spread the Net challenge. Not only did it take up the challenge, it smashed it. At the end of the challenge, the school had raised over $27,000. Beaverly Elementary was the number one school in the country for fundraising. Rick Mercer, who cofounded the Spread the Net program, personally paid the school a visit to thank the students for their efforts.

    I am so proud of what our students have accomplished. I congratulate all of the students, parents, and staff at Beaverly Elementary School for their efforts. I am incredibly proud to serve all of them.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the opportunity to meet with my American neighbours from Vermont, including Senator Bernie Sanders' and Senator Patrick Leahy's teams.

    I think it is crucial that we strengthen our ties with our neighbours, since we share so many concerns, including the environment. In fact, we plan to have another meeting in my riding in early June to continue our discussions.

    In my region, the water quality of Lake Champlain is a perfect example of the need for co-operation. It is a serious issue that calls for all stakeholders to work together. That is why we will continue to fully support Canadian values when it comes to the environment.

    It is imperative that most of the funding allocated to Lake Champlain in budget 2016, that is, $7.5 million, be spent primarily on the water quality of our lake.

    I encourage all my colleagues to reach out to American senators to build meaningful relationships with our neighbours to the south.

    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to acknowledge Samantha Giguere who was recently selected as one of Canada's 33 Loran Scholars. This prestigious program provides tuition waivers and is valued at $100,000 over four years of undergraduate study.

    A resident of Thessalon First Nation and a student at Central Algoma Secondary School, Samantha is the only Loran Scholar from northern Ontario this year, and was chosen based on evidence of character, commitment to service in her community, and long-term leadership potential.

    Samantha sings, plays the fiddle, has coordinated a musical performance for a literary event, and for the last four years has organized a dinner and talent show fundraiser. Her efforts supported the Rebekahs, have helped send high school students to the United Nations, and assisted a nearby double lung transplant recipient.

    Samantha hopes to study archeology and indigenous studies at the University of Toronto, and looks forward to the support she will receive as a Loran Scholar.

    I ask all members to join me in congratulating Samantha and all Loran Scholars

    Mr. Speaker, the abandoned coal mines of Springhill, Nova Scotia have been sealed off for more than 60 years. However, for the past three decades, businesses and civic buildings in the town have been heated by the warm water that flooded those miles of deserted mines, a very low-cost and sustainable source of heating energy. However, geothermal heat remains largely unexploited, even as we are working to prepare Canadians in every province for a low emissions future.

    Even though the potential for geothermal heating in Canada is great, there are few tax measures and programs to encourage this development. Now is the time for the federal and provincial governments to put forward measures that encourage the exploration and development of geothermal energy sources.

    Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is the cornerstone of democratic societies. One of the things that makes Canada great is the freedom we enjoy to follow our consciences, and to live out our faiths in a diverse society.

    This year, as Canadians celebrate 150 years since Confederation, it is important to reflect on the Judeo-Christian principles that played such a key role in Canada's formation. These are principles that set the foundation for freedom and diversity of culture and faiths that we enjoy today.

    Next week, Canada, and the Christian faith in particular, will celebrate Easter. Easter is a time, as singer-songwriter Chris Tomlin so wonderfully expresses, God's love ran red and He sent his only Son to be crucified to pay the price for our sins.

    The really good news is the cross could not hold Him. The tomb is empty. We serve a living saviour, and He is coming back again.

    Mr. Speaker, to you, to the House, and to all Canadians, happy and blessed Easter.

    Mr. Speaker, all members in this place can attest that whatever we do, whatever impact we make in our capacity as members, constituents we help, events we attend, communities we engage, and discussions we facilitate, we would not be able to do much without the support of our volunteers. These are people who give us their most precious asset, their time.

    I rise today to pay tribute to the youth of team Mississauga—Erin Mills for the time, support, and counsel they provide me. They engage in politics and governance, community, and positive impact. They understand that through volunteerism, they empower themselves to take ownership of our country.

    Here is to our youth councils, to the youth volunteers at my offices, including: Amna, Ayesha, Fares, Amira, Andrew, Ahmed, Holden, and to the great friends that go above and beyond: Angad, Kazim, Tamer, Abed, Zubair, Ian, and Andy.

    Let us keep empowering our youth. Our leaders of tomorrow will thank us for it.

    Mr. Speaker, Sunday was Pope John Paul II Day in Ontario. As a young man, Karol Wojtyla entered an underground seminary during the Nazi occupation of Poland, and at lethal personal risk, saved Polish Jews. Following the Soviet takeover of deeply Catholic Poland, Stalin scoffed, “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”

     It was at this time that Father Wojtyla was ordained, focusing on youth and organizing secret prayers and theological discussions.

    Elected pontiff in 1978, Pope John Paul II's experiences as a bishop and cardinal in Communist atheist Poland provided him with the inner strength and experience to catalyze Poles in opposition to the regime. The peaceful Solidarity revolution led to the downfall of Poland's Communist rulers, peaceful revolutions in the Warsaw Pact countries, and the collapse of the Soviet evil empire. Saint John Paul II visited Canada three times, touching the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

    Bóg Zaplac.

    Mr. Speaker, On March 7, Abbotsford lost a servant leader. Legendary former mayor George Ferguson died at the full age of 91.

    George grew up in Abbotsford and began his political career in 1969 as alderman. He was soon elected mayor of the district of Abbotsford, where he served for over 33 years. Over that time, George presided over the merger of the districts of Abbotsford and Matsqui and served as president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union of BC Municipalities.

    For many of us, George was a mentor and an inspiration to make public life our calling. He never failed to remind us that we are each called to be a servant of the people. Predeceased by his first wife Betty, George leaves behind 11 children, a host of grand- and great-grandchildren, his beloved wife Ria, and many friends.

    He leaves a big hole in our community, but his legacy of servant leadership will never be forgotten. George, well done, thou good and faithful servant.

    Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, including those living with a disability, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Building inclusive communities is the cornerstone of our government's commitment to fostering fair and equal opportunities for every Canadian. Accessibility may get someone through the door, but inclusivity creates an atmosphere where everyone is welcome and treated equally. One of my goals is to make Halton the most accessible and inclusive region in Canada.

    My recent round table discussion with businesses, agencies, and advocates focused on the benefits of inclusive employment and removing barriers that prevent individuals living with disabilities from participating in the workforce. I was thrilled to see budget 2017's commitment to promoting equal opportunities and increased inclusion for Canadians living with disabilities. I encourage my colleagues in this House to encourage businesses to create inclusive employment strategies in their own communities.

    Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome to Ottawa the Canadian Airports Council. This council is a voice for Canadian airports across this country. Serving as gateways to the world, airports are economic engines in our communities, generating more than 140,000 direct jobs and some $35 billion in economic activity.

    In my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, under the direction of airport manager Sam Samaddar and his team, Kelowna International Airport is one of the busiest airports in Canada, serving 1.7 million passengers last year and creating more than 4,500 jobs and almost $800 million in economic output for the province of British Columbia.

    I invite all members of this House to join me today from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Sir John A. Macdonald building for a reception recognizing our airports' contributions to the Canadian economy. If members have an airport in their riding, come over to Sir John A.

    Mr. Speaker, the world was reminded yesterday of the devastating, barbaric effects of chemical weapons. In northern Syria, scores of innocent children, women, and men were killed in what many witnesses and officials believe was a sarin gas attack.

    While chemical weapons in Syria are unfortunately nothing new, this one was different. People who were outdoors immediately collapsed, suffocating, foaming at the mouth, their pupils reduced to the size of pinpoints. These details are horrific, but they need to be read into the record.

     Many believe that Bashar al-Assad has now resorted to using toxic nerve agents against Syria's civilian population. The world must respond. There is no question that yesterday's events constitute a war crime. Assad, and his allies in Tehran and Moscow, must be held to account.

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to share with this House that Guelph, the royal city, will be celebrating its 190th anniversary on St. George's Day, April 23.

     The history of Guelph embodies a proud spirit of innovation. In 1827, our city's founding father, John Galt, designed Guelph as a planned town, a Canadian first, to resemble European city centres, complete with squares, broad main streets, and city blocks. This was a radical concept at the time and set the foundation for city planning in Canada. It was also a home for the Canada Company to encourage people to set up business in Canada, even before farms were established.

    Guelph has left an indelible mark on Canada's national fabric. It is at the forefront of business, environmental, and social innovation and development. I am truly honoured to represent this vibrant city.

    Mr. Speaker, across Canada, indigenous women and girls have gone missing or have been murdered. For too long, this silent legacy has impacted communities and families. The national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is set to begin hearing testimony from families this May.

    It is time to take out of the shadows the reality that indigenous women and girls have faced alone for too long. It is time for those voices to be heard. For them and their families, this needs to be done right. They must be heard when they say that the approach feels disorganized and that transmitting families' contact information is confusing.

     Our confidence cannot be shaken, because the stories need to be told. Canada must listen, and the government must act. We are faced with an opportunity to shape the lives of indigenous girls. In my riding of North Island—Powell River, I have heard the grieving calls of family members too often.

    All voices need to be heard. I ask people to call or write the inquiry and end the silence.

    Mr. Speaker, April 2 was World Autism Awareness Day and 19 years since my son Jaden was diagnosed, at two. Jaden is not special because he has autism, nor is he special despite having autism. He is just really and truly special.

    When people are with Jaden, he does not require them to be anyone they are not. He simply loves the fact that they are with him. He does not care at all what party people are with, whether someone is the Prime Minister, a backbencher, a staff member, or even a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

     He likes people and trusts them. If they do him wrong, he will probably like and trust them all over again before they have completed their next breath.

    Too often our society views such naïveté as weakness. Having had the privilege of learning from Jaden for 21 years, I would argue that the opposite is true. If we can adapt our thinking to include and embrace more of the raw honesty and vulnerability we see in people like Jaden, we will all be better off for it.

    Mr. Speaker, it was the mid-1980s in Kingston, Ontario, when five boys, linked together by their love for music, decided to form a band. It was nearly three decades later that I had the privilege, as mayor of Kingston, of renaming a street after them. Last Sunday night, for the third time, The Tragically Hip won group of the year at the Junos.

    From winning most promising group of the year in 1990, the Hip went on to win countless awards and to be inducted into Canada's Walk of Fame and the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, but perhaps what is most remarkable about The Tragically Hip is their love for their community. Throughout the years, they have given back immensely to Kingston, most often to very little fanfare. From getting involved in local charity events to raising money for cancer research, they took their fame and used it to make their community an even better place for everyone.

     We thank Gord, Gord, Paul, Rob, and Johnny for sharing their work and talent with us. I speak on behalf of all Kingstonians, and indeed all Canadians, when I say we are proud to call them Canada's band.

    Mr. Speaker, the world is watching with horror as the unimaginable unfolds in Syria.

    Last night the Prime Minister said:

    We agree. Can the Prime Minister share with Canadians and with the House what specific actions Canada is planning to take to hold the perpetrators to account?

    Mr. Speaker, we are shocked and appalled by the reports of chemical weapons attacks against civilians in Syria. Many of the victims were children.

    It is critical that we hold those responsible to account for these war crimes. We are supporting evidence gathering to achieve that end. In addition, we will provide $840-million worth of lifesaving humanitarian and development assistance for the region to alleviate the suffering in this conflict.

    As we speak, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is at the Brussels conference on the future of Syria. These meetings will work toward finding a lasting political resolution to the Syrian war and to addressing the critical needs of the most vulnerable.

    Mr. Speaker, we know the Minister of National Defence misled Canadians when he said that our allies were okay with Canada pulling our fighter jets out of the fight against ISIS. We now know that this was deliberately misleading, and it was a betrayal of our nation's trust.

    My question for the Prime Minister is very straightforward. Did he instruct his Minister of National Defence to mislead Canadians in order to save face?

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is proud that we have stepped up in the fight against Daesh by contributing significantly to training on the ground, to supporting the peshmerga, to demonstrate that there are many ways that Canada can have a positive impact in the fight against Daesh.

    We continue to stand strongly with our international allies, including in the Iraqi government, as we bring the fight to a positive conclusion alongside our allies.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office stated publicly on November 26 that there was absolutely no pressure put on Canada to continue its bombing mission in Iraq. We now know that is not true. Emails from Canadian officials prove that our allies asked the Minister of National Defence, on numerous occasions, to keep our CF-18s in the fight.

    Did the Prime Minister deliberately mislead the public, or is he in the dark when it comes to Canada's defence and national security?

    Mr. Speaker, on our commitment to continue as a valuable member of the coalition against Daesh, we were very clear in the election campaign that we would look for ways that better suited Canada's capacities. That is what we told our allies and explained to them throughout those months as we were determining how best Canada could help.

    I can assure this House and all Canadians that our allies were very pleased with the level of contribution Canadians offered over the past months, a year and a half, to the fight against Daesh.

    Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is sending taxpayers' money to Bombardier executives, he is taking money away from hard-working Canadians.

    New taxes on payroll, small businesses, public transit, taxis, beer, electricity, fuel, just name it and the Prime Minister will tax it.

    When will the Prime Minister realize that he was elected to manage Canadians' money properly and not to hand it out to his friends?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her intervention.

    Indeed, we are all concerned about the cost of living for all Canadians. That is why we did something about it. We lowered taxes for the middle class and increased them for the wealthiest 1%. We implemented the Canada child benefit, which gives more money to nine out of ten Canadian families every month and as a result lifts hundreds of thousands of young people out of poverty and reduces child poverty by 40%.

    We agree with the hon. members across the way that a lot of work still needs to be done, but we are here to keep working for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, today on the Hill there are hundreds of people helping to recognize World Autism Day. They are calling on the Prime Minister to provide less than $4 million a year to continue the good work of the Canadian Autism Partnership Project, money that was missing in the budget. That is almost equivalent to the bonus hike the CEO of Bombardier gave himself for one year.

    What kind of message does the Prime Minister think this sends to parents of kids with autism when the Prime Minister can find money for bonuses for executives from Bombardier but he cannot find money for families with autism?

    Mr. Speaker, I recognize the passion the member opposite has for this issue and recognize all members in the House who have stood up strongly in talking about autism and celebrating the advancements that have been made and indeed highlighting the work that we continue to do.

    On Bombardier, I do need to point out that this was a loan that we were happy to make to invest in specific projects that are going to create good jobs for Canadians, that are going to secure the long-term future of the aerospace industry in this country, which leads to economic growth, innovation, and benefits for communities and the middle-class workers who live in them right across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, the government wants to unilaterally change the rules that govern the House of Commons. At first, the Liberals pretended it was just a discussion paper and now they claim that this power grab is necessary to be rammed through here because, well, it was in their election platform. Can the Prime Minister explain then why he used the excuse of a lack of consensus to abandon his platform promise on democratic reform, but now he unilaterally wants to change the way our democracy works?

    Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to continue contributing suggestions on how we can improve the working atmosphere in the House, how we can better deliver for Canadians. We are happy that we have launched a conversation about how we can modernize this place, how we can improve the service we offer, both to Canadians and to our constituents. I look forward to engaging with all members in the House on improvements that can be made to this place as we move forward.

    Mr. Speaker, forcing a so-called discussion paper on the committee is a monologue, not a dialogue.

    This Prime Minister promised to put an end to the concentration of power that began with his father's tenure, but instead he is preparing to ram through changes that will benefit the Liberals.

    Does the Prime Minister understand the difference between making things better for Parliament and making things better for the Liberals?

    Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that we have brought forward proposals to help modernize Parliament, and I look forward to start discussing the various options in committee. I want to hear what our friends in the other parties are going to suggest. I am really looking forward to working with them to ensure that Parliament better serves Canadians across the country and that we better serve our constituents as well.

    I believe that everyone knows that we can always do better, and that is exactly what I hope to do, together with the members of Parliament.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to hand out criminal records to Canadians, particularly young people and minority groups, for possession of marijuana.

    Every time we propose the decriminalization of marijuana as an interim measure, the Liberals say that we are against legalization, which is not true. We are against the fact that thousands of Canadians are being prosecuted in the meantime, since that affects the rest of their lives.

    Can the Prime Minister tell us how many people have been handed a criminal record since the last election?

    Mr. Speaker, we promised to legalize and control cannabis for two very specific reasons.

    First, we want to prevent our kids from having easy access to cannabis, as they do now. We know that it is easier for a young person to buy a joint than a bottle of beer. That is unacceptable. At the same time, we know that organized crime groups make billions of dollars trafficking marijuana, and that is exactly what we want to prevent.

    Decriminalizing cannabis will do nothing to protect our kids and nothing to counter organized crime, and I will continue to repeat that until—

    Order.

    The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to hide the number of charges and criminal records handed out for cannabis possession since the Liberals have come to power. Charges for serious crimes are being stayed or withdrawn because of a lack of resources, and yet the Prime Minister is fine with overloading the justice system with possession charges. This disproportionately affects young and racialized Canadians and there is quite a bit of hypocrisy to that.

    Does the Prime Minister think he would be where he is today if he had been caught when smoking marijuana?

    Mr. Speaker, I understand the question and concerns the members opposite have, but our focus on legalization and control of cannabis is on protecting our kids and on getting the money out of organized crime's pockets. We know that happens when we legalize and control and bring in a proper regime. The fact is decriminalization does nothing to protect our kids, nothing to remove the profits from the hands of criminals. Until such a moment as we have a legal framework that protects our kids and stops the criminals from profiting, it will remain illegal.

    Mr. Speaker, in just three weeks, our softwood lumber may be slapped with countervailing duties. I want the Prime Minister to give forestry industry workers some answers.

    Yesterday, we heard that the Americans were refusing to talk about it, probably because nobody ever really explained to them what the system is all about and how rigorous it is. That is from the Resolute Forest Products CEO. He added that he was appalled at the federal government's feeble attempts to stand up for Quebec's forestry system internationally.

    What will the Prime Minister do for the hundreds of thousands of families that depend on the forestry industry?

    Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the U.S. government on resolving this issue from the very beginning of our mandate.

    We know that thousands of jobs and communities across the country depend on forestry. It is our duty to keep working very hard to protect those jobs and create more opportunities in Canada's forestry industry. We know that Americans do not want their housing and construction costs to go up. Canada is a major supplier of softwood lumber for American consumers.

    We will keep working with the U.S. government to resolve this frustrating dispute.

    Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I was here on June 29, 2016, when former U.S. President Barack Obama was here, and we were promised that this would be resolved within weeks. Now we hear what the Prime Minister is saying in the House today. Why is no one capable of explaining to the Americans that they need to import 30% of their lumber and that 30% comes from Canada? It is not complicated. If they import less wood from Canada, the price of American wood will go up, Americans will build fewer houses, and there will be fewer jobs for carpenters, plumbers, and electricians.

    This is not rocket science. Why is the government incapable of explaining this to the Americans?

    Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member. He makes a very good point. We need to do more to explain to the Americans just how important free trade between Canada and the U.S. is for jobs and for consumers on both sides of the border.

    We will continue with our work and remain united in our desire to resolve this issue. That is why we are so determined and are working so hard to protect Canadian jobs and create economic growth in communities across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the government quietly tabled a response to an Order Paper question revealing that the $372-million Bombardier agreement has not been signed or finalized. It is not a done deal, so the Liberals have time to stop this outrageous taxpayer-funded bail-out of incompetent billionaire executives. The Liberals could, for example, reduce the amount they are handing Bombardier by the same amount Bombardier is paying its executives.

    Before the Liberals sign this deal and send the money, why will they not ban Bombardier billionaires from pocketing it?

    Mr. Speaker, the investments we are making in the future of our aerospace industry will lead to good jobs across the country and to economic growth and innovation.

    The loan we made to Bombardier that is focused on two specific products, the C Series airplane and the Global 7000, demonstrates that we believe in the strong future for the aerospace industry in this country, and why we are going to continue to make investments that will lead to good jobs and opportunities for innovation and growth right across the country in high-value industries, like the aerospace industry.

     Mr. Speaker, the company is actually cutting jobs, 14,000 of them, while the Liberals hand over millions to billionaire executives, but it is not too late to stop it. We learned today that the deal is not signed and the government still has time to impose new conditions.

    Why will the Liberals not tell Bombardier that either it cancels its bonuses and its pay hikes until taxpayers get repaid or it will not get the money at all?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, we believe in the strong future for the aerospace industry in this country, and are happy to make investments that will lead to good jobs, growth and opportunities not just right now but for decades to come. The kinds of investments we are making in innovation, in the growth of the C Series and the Global 7000, will ensure the kind of opportunity and prosperity that Canadians have long been looking for. This is why we are making the right kinds of investments in our future and why we will continue to make investments, like lending Bombardier significant amounts, to be able to create opportunities to grow and succeed and continue our economic—

    The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister took hundreds of millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers and loaned that money to Bombardier. To show its gratitude, Bombardier cut 14,000 jobs while its senior executives gave themselves tens of millions of dollars in raises. This makes no sense at all, and is quite the departure from the spirit of the company's founder Joseph-Armand Bombardier, who was a great Canadian.

    Those people are filling their pockets while the current government is emptying Canadian taxpayers' pockets.

    Can the Prime Minister stand in his place and tell us whether he picked up his phone and called the CEO of Bombardier to tell him that what Bombardier is doing makes no sense?

    Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague in that we are very proud of Bombardier and of what it has accomplished in the aerospace industry over the years, the good jobs it has created, and the innovation and economic leadership it has shown across the country.

    That is why we were happy to invest in two specific programs by providing a loan to Bombardier that will translate into the long-term viability of these projects and create job opportunities in the aerospace industry across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that Bombardier came looking for money for its C Series. It did not ask for anything for the Global 7000 but, coincidentally, the government accommodates people from Toronto.

    If it is as good as that, why will the Prime Minister not let Bombardier and his minister appear before the parliamentary committee? Given the situation, that is what we want. We, the Conservatives, are inviting the big boss of Bombardier to appear before the parliamentary committee and explain himself.

    Does the Prime Minister agree?

    Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to highlight for the House the investments that Canada is making in our aerospace industry because we know that this will lead to good jobs today and in the future, stimulate innovation, and enable us to capture a larger share of the global market. It will help us demonstrate that Canada makes good-quality merchandise and goods and provides services throughout the world.

    We know that investments are needed to achieve this success and we are proud of what we are doing to create opportunities for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Brian Mulroney, who is pushing for the government to put an end to our supply management system, is going to advise the Liberal cabinet on the renegotiation of NAFTA. When it comes to international trade and the protection of our supply management system, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are really just one and the same.

    At least the compensation provided for by the Conservatives to producers and processors would have been more substantial once the Canada-Europe free trade agreement took effect.

    Can the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister confirm to us today that they will grant tariff quotas to Canadian processors?

    Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that, as a government, we are open to working together, across party lines, to properly represent Canada and build this relationship.

    I want to point out the work that we are doing with all of the different parties in the House to properly position ourselves with regard to the new American administration. Many premiers from various provinces and political parties are diligently working with us to present a united front to the United States. It is important that we listen to each other and work together because this goes beyond partisanship—

    Order.

    The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

    Mr. Speaker, recent reports forecast that Hamilton steel producer Stelco, which is currently under bankruptcy protection, will soon have close to $300 million in the bank. Meanwhile, after the company cut workers' health benefits, pensioners have to apply to a temporary fund for emergency prescriptions or health needs on a first-come, first-served basis.

    How can we explain to the 20,000 Stelco retirees that the government allows Canadian companies to bank $300 million while they strip much needed and earned health benefits? When will the government step in and help these retirees?

    Mr. Speaker, we recognize the challenges that so many people in the Hamilton area and indeed across the country in the steel industry are facing. That is why we are so determined to work with our partners and allies and industry partners here in Canada to strengthen the steel industry.

    The issue of steel is one that has come up many times in our engagement with the United States. I can tell the member that we are working in a constructive, productive way to promote and defend our North American steel industry, to highlight the important role that the Canadian steel industry has in markets around the world, and to ensure that we are making the best possible secure future for our citizens and—

    The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are trying to ram through substantive changes to see them held less accountable to the people they serve: changes that will see Liberal MPs take Fridays off; changes that will see the Prime Minister show up to work here in question period just once a week; changes that will limit the ability of MPs to hold the government to account on behalf of Canadians.

    Canadians work hard and they expect nothing less from their MPs. They expect the Prime Minister to put in a full work week and they definitely expect the government to be held accountable for its actions.

    Why is the Prime Minister so afraid of being held accountable by Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to personally answer this question.

    The fact is that I accept any suggestions and opportunities the member has. As he puts forward suggestions and opportunities that we can have to improve the tone of this House to make sure that we are working in better ways—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please. I would ask members to restrain themselves both in their comments and in their reactions.

    The right hon. Prime Minister.

    Mr. Speaker, I hear members opposite have many suggestions on how we can improve the functioning of the House. I look forward to listening to that member and to all members of the House put forward their suggestions on improving the way we serve Canadians and our constituents at the same time. I am very pleased to encourage people to participate.

    Mr. Speaker, he may have stood up every time, but he did not answer a single question.

    Like all other MPs, I am answerable to my constituents, and not just those who voted for me. How can I explain to them that not one day goes by that the Liberals do not show contempt for Canadians and their MPs with their unilateral bid for absolute power here in Parliament?

    Can the Prime Minister acknowledge that those who speak on Canadians' behalf are not puppets?

    When will the Prime Minister get that the Liberals have no right to change our rules without our consent?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his passion and enthusiasm for this issue.

    Naturally, what happens in the House matters very much to us all, but the important thing is to ensure that we are serving Canadians well. As I have always said, diversity helps make this country strong. That is why I am very happy to hear the suggestions and contributions coming from members across the aisle. I want to ensure that they can participate fully in this conversation about how we are going to improve this workplace to better serve people in the House and across the country.

    Look at that, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is able to answer as many questions as he wants without unilaterally ramming changes through the House of Commons, which is exactly what he wants to do. He wants to rig the rules in his favour. He wants to cut off debate and silence his critics. He wants to shut this place down on Fridays. He wants less transparency and less accountability. He wants to diminish the voice of Canadians in this place. Now he only wants to show up in question period once a week.

    When will the Prime Minister stop acting so arrogantly and stop trying to make his life easier by reducing government accountability?

    Mr. Speaker, obviously the member has very strong ideas about how to improve this place, how to make it better, how to make sure we are being accountable and serving Canadians in the right way. I encourage the member to bring forward those concrete suggestions so we can work together to make sure the House serves Canadians better to the level they expect.

    I am happy we are having this conversation, and I look forward to continuing it in committee and in various places where we can demonstrate our commitment collectively to serve Canadians with everything we have.

    Mr. Speaker, here is a concrete suggestion. Stop trying to ram these unilateral changes down our throats. Shutting down Parliament on Fridays, reducing debate, having the Prime Minister only show up in the House once a week for 45 minutes does not serve the interests of Canadians. It serves the interests of the Prime Minister. Canadians did not elect us to make this a safe space for the Prime Minister. We are here to do our job and hold him accountable.

    When will the Prime Minister abandon his unilateral efforts to make his government less transparent and less accountable to Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be held accountable by Canadians and by people in the House every single day. That goes with the responsibilities I have and we all have collectively in the House. Drawing on—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please. I had no trouble hearing the question, but I ought to be able to hear the answer as well. Members need to restrain themselves. I know it is Wednesday. Perhaps we need to serve decaf on Wednesday.

    The right hon. Prime Minister.

    Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am happy to draw suggestions from all sides of the House. The proposal around prime minister's questions was actually made by the member from Halton Hills a number of years ago. It is the kind of thing we are happy to discuss and look at. I think it means we should have a discussion about how to improve the ways we serve Canadians.

    Bringing forward positive discussions on improving the way the House works is entirely responsible and entirely in keeping with what Canadians expect. I look forward to hearing many more concrete proposals from all benches in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are indefinitely postponing the reforms they had promised to access to information, despite the very comprehensive report released by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada in 2015 and the report by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in 2016. We would like the President of the Treasury Board to explain this sudden flip-flop to parliamentarians.

    Can the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tell the House what business the committee will be working on next?

    Mr. Speaker, as vice chair of the committee, I am pleased to answer the question and teach the Prime Minister to do something he has not learned in 18 months, which is to give a straight answer.

    The committee did indeed table its report last year. In light of a recent announcement by the President of the Treasury Board that the government did not intend to implement its promised reforms anytime soon, some committee members moved a motion calling on the President of the Treasury Board to explain himself at committee.

    For those who do not know, our committee has a Liberal majority. When it came to a vote, the motion was defeated.

    Mr. Speaker, access to information reform has been studied time and again. In fact, one could say in this case it has been studied literally to death.

    Despite two recent reports and calls for reform, the President of the Treasury Board announced he was not going to be keeping his promise to introduce new legislation this spring. Instead of explaining himself at committee, to which he earnestly promised reform, he is allowing the Liberal members to run interference.

    Why is he suddenly scared to come to the committee, and will he take this opportunity to explain himself to the House?

    Mr. Speaker, this government was elected on a pledge of openness and transparency, and we are keeping that pledge. We are demonstrating a level of accountability that is going far beyond what any previous government did. We continue to look forward to ways to improve and increase the level of transparency and accountability of this government.

    I welcome the hard work done by the committee. I look forward to continuing to work with all members in the House to improve the way government and indeed Parliament functions in a collaborative, respectful way.

    Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the images of yesterday's horrific chemical attack in northwestern Syria. For six years, this war has dragged on. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions displaced. An end to this war is needed. Help for the people of Syria must be made accessible. They are the innocent victims of this tragic conflict.

    The international community has a responsibility to help the most vulnerable. What is Canada doing to help the Syrian people?

    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler on the hard work he is doing on his files.

    We are outraged by the reports of a chemical weapons attack against innocent civilians in Syria. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime. This is just the latest atrocity in a conflict that has been going on far too long.

    Our government is acting. We are providing $840 million worth of assistance for the region, and are increasing accountability by supporting evidence gathering of these war crimes. Furthermore, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is participating in the Brussels conference on the future of Syria to support lasting resolution to the war and address the needs of the vulnerable.

    Mr. Speaker, the new appointments process is the perfect Liberal misdirection. Another one of Ms. Stebbing's qualifications for appointment to the Hamilton Port Authority is that she is also the Liberal Party's golden horseshoe regional president.

    While the Minister of Transport waxes eloquent on openness and transparency, being a Liberal donor or failed candidate are the qualifications that win the day.

    Will the Prime Minister direct the minister to go back to the job posting that is still on Transport Canada's website and nominate someone who is actually qualified for the position?

    Mr. Speaker, one of the commitments we made and are keeping from our election campaign is to renew and modernize the appointments process, to allow Canadians to apply from all different backgrounds and all different walks of life and diversity, and to have appointments across the country that better reflect the full diversity of backgrounds, views and perspectives of Canadians on a merit-based system.

    That is exactly what we have done, particularly necessary after too long of successive governments choosing favouritism over objective qualities. That is what we have done, and are continuing to do.

    Mr. Speaker, let us see if the Prime Minister can try answering this question.

    The minister's website states that the requirements for a successful nominee include “extensive experience related to...the operation of a port or to maritime trade”. Ms. Stebbing's own law firm's website states that she specializes in “estate planning, administration and accounting. She focuses on ensuring her clients wishes are respected after they pass away.”

    Could the Prime Minister explain to the House what in Jennifer Stebbing's resume met the requirements of extensive experience in maritime trade?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her concern about the quality of our appointments.

    We are very much focused on the quality and diversity of the appointments we make. We know that the people we appoint into positions of authority should reflect the entire diversity of the country and have a range of experiences and qualifications.

    That is exactly what we have been doing and why we are so proud that we have had more female appointments than male. We have had extraordinary diversity. We have had tremendous indigenous appointments across the country. We have renewed the appointments process and allowed Canadians from all backgrounds to apply.

    Order, please. I have no trouble hearing the questions, but I am having trouble hearing the answers. We need to hear both.

    Mr. Speaker, it is quite a spectacle today. If only there were a Standing Order that could be concocted that would guarantee the quality of the Prime Minister's answers and not just the quantity of the Prime Minister's answers, we would actually get somewhere.

    Speaking of the Prime Minister, unlike hard-working Canadians, the Prime Minister took a lavish billionaire boondoggle vacation at taxpayer expense over the holidays. Now we know the taxpayers also paid to his billionaire friend the money to accommodate the Prime Minister's staff on this lavish holiday.

    When will the Prime Minister come down from his sandcastle in the sky and explain why the taxpayers are on the hook?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times, this was a personal family vacation. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the Ethics Commissioner and her office on any questions related to this travel.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's arrogance is killing me.

    In Canada, like in other places around the world, the Prime Minister has no problem giving taxpayers' money to his billionaire friends, while simultaneously eliminating the public transit tax credit. Yesterday we learned that the Aga Khan was financially compensated by the state during the leader of the Liberal Party's personal vacation. Once again, Canadian taxpayers are paying for his arrogance and poor judgment.

    When will the Prime Minister walk his talk and treat the middle class—

    The right hon. Prime Minister.

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to the tax credit for public transit, that measure was introduced to promote the use of public transit. That is what the minister said when she introduced the measure to Canadians.

    Sadly, according to the numbers, the measure had no impact on the use of public transit. That is why we decided instead to invest billions of dollars more in new public transit projects, including the Réseau électrique métropolitain in Montreal and the Service rapide par bus in Quebec City. Similar projects exist across the country, and we are pleased to invest in them to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for taking so many questions today. I would also like to point out, again, that he managed to do this without changing a single rule. No need to unilaterally use the power to ram through the changes. He was able to do it within existing rules.

    Will he now commit in this place that he will continue that spirit of co-operation? Will he agree that he will not use his unilateral majority to change the rules in this place and change how democracy works? Will he do that now, today?

    Mr. Speaker, the question I think we can all agree on in this place is—and I hear the energy, enthusiasm, and passion of the member opposite—what will that change look like? How do we change this place so it becomes better able to serve?

    That is why I look forward very much to hearing the suggestions and contributions from the members opposite on how we can better serve Canadians. That is what Canadians—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I ask the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and other members to restrain themselves. I know that members are very interested in the debate, but there need to be questions and comments and I need to be able to hear them.

    The right hon. Prime Minister has nine seconds.

    Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to hear suggestions from the members opposite; even when they are yelled out, their suggestions are acceptable. I want to work with the members in order to improve the situation.

    Mr. Speaker, after the way the Prime Minister treated electoral reform, his treatment of parliamentary democracy has about as much credibility as a Pepsi commercial.

    I know that the Prime Minister is looking forward to having this discussion. He wants to hear passionate speeches and get our suggestions, but the problem is the process. All it would take to launch the discussion that he so badly wants is to assure us that the changes will not be made unilaterally.

    I will give the Prime Minister another chance to give us those assurances today, right now. Will he promise not to make any changes unilaterally, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians made a choice in the last election. They chose a party that was committed to modernizing Parliament.

    I am very pleased to suggest various ways in which hon. members may contribute to the process and to developing our approach to modernization. People expect us to work together in a respectful manner, as we are today, to determine the best way to improve the House of Commons. It is perfectly reasonable to want to work with hon. members and I hope that we can work together.

    Mr. Speaker, that is what we would call all hat, no horse.

    A government email confirms that the Iraqi government asked Canada to continue its bombing mission against ISIS on multiple occasions. Our Kurdish and Iraqi partners in the fight against ISIS describe our air strikes as effective and life-saving and as destroying the enemy.

    Our allies repeatedly asked Canada to keep our CF-18s in the fight, but the minister ignored them and told Canadians that our partners and allies were okay with the Liberals' decision.

    Canadians cannot trust the Minister of National Defence when he continues to mislead us. Will the Prime Minister make the Minister of National Defence apologize?

    Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians I applaud the Minister of National Defence for his extraordinary service to this country and respect the extraordinary work that he has done as Minister of National Defence.

    Our allies were rightly interested in how Canada was going to continue to participate in the coalition against Daesh, how we were going to continue to demonstrate that Canada is a valuable partner that contributes in the war against Daesh, and that is exactly what we did.

    We demonstrated that we knew that Canadians could help on the ground through training and support for the peshmerga as they advanced toward Mosul, and that is exactly what our allies have most appreciated about us over the past year and a half.

    Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, I would like to thank the Minister of National Defence for his service. That said, he is now the Minister of National Defence, and no longer a soldier.

    For the good of Canada, we should not allow the Minister of National Defence to distort the facts. To say that the Iraqis and the Kurds were pleased with the new mission in Iraq is completely false and to state that the Royal Canadian Air Force has a capability gap is completely false. In addition, the minister is further damaging the reputation of the Canadian Forces by postponing major procurement projects for 20 years.

    Can the Prime Minister ask the Minister of National Defence to show some backbone and tell Canadians the truth?

    Mr. Speaker, this government is very proud of what it is doing to give our armed forces the equipment and support needed to carry out the mandate entrusted to them by Canadians and this government.

    We know that Canada cannot do everything, but we will carry out our responsibilities properly with the help of all possible assets. For that reason we chose a mission that supports and trains the Kurds, a mission that has a significant impact in the fight against Daesh.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to double down on the alternative facts. The defence minister said that there were no qualms about pulling our jets out of the fight against ISIS, yet emails from Global Affairs say there were. The minister said there is a capability gap, but the commander of the air force said there is not. The defence minister also claimed Conservatives sent our troops to fight ISIS without tax relief, yet a document with the defence minister's signature on it says the exact opposite.

    Canadians need a strong, principled, and trustworthy leader, not another patsy to the Prime Minister. How can anyone trust the Prime Minister and the defence minister? Will they apologize?

    Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians chose a different approach when they elected us as government. We choose to make decisions based on how Canada can best help in the world. We make decisions based on facts, based on evidence, and based on the best way to move forward. That is the approach we have always taken and will always take, particularly in regard to the brave men and women serving in the Canadian Forces.

    Mr. Speaker, in recent days, residents of southern and central Manitoba have been impacted by rising water levels and flooding, which has resulted in local states of emergency, road closures, and evacuations in several first nations communities. Our hearts go out to the evacuees in their time of need and to others in the communities dealing with encroaching flood waters.

    I know all members join me in expressing our concern, as well as our appreciation for first responders. Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell us how the government is supporting Manitobans as this year's flood season begins?

    Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness takes this very seriously, as does the Prime Minister. The thoughts of all Canadians are with the residents of Manitoba affected by the flooding, as well as with the first responders and others working hard on the ground to keep people safe.

    We are ensuring that affected first nations community members are safe, secure, and out of the path of flood waters. For several months now, the government operations centre has been monitoring flood risks and preparing for the spring melt in collaboration with federal and provincial partners. Should we receive a request for assistance from the province, our government stands ready to help.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be ashamed of the decisions being made by his Minister of Public Services and Procurement. Thanks to the good work done by the member for Edmonton West, we now know that the public servants who worked on Phoenix, either directly or indirectly, received bonuses totalling $5 million and $14,000 per employee.

    How could the Prime Minister possibly want to grant bonuses? Did he not in fact want to set an example for Bombardier executives?

    Mr. Speaker, first of all, as we have said repeatedly, it is unacceptable that anyone should have to work without adequate, reliable pay. That is why we are working so hard on the Phoenix system in question; we want to fix this problem that we inherited. The fact is that we will continue to work with public services and with everyone involved to fix this problem, which, I agree, has been dragging on too long.

    Mr. Speaker, once again flooding has hit Manitoba. There are many evacuees and most are from first nations, including Peguis First Nation, the largest in Manitoba. This is not the first time that this is happening, and every time it happens, first nations are hit the hardest.

    The Prime Minister likes to talk about first nations, but what people in crisis on the ground need is immediate action. Will his government work with Peguis and other first nations to provide the long-term flood mitigation that they need now?

    Mr. Speaker, in our election platform, we put forward billions of dollars toward green infrastructure, which includes flood mitigation, which is so important. We are working indeed with first nations to ensure that they are safe and taken care of through this particular crisis. Our commitment to renewal and to reconciliation means that we will be working with indigenous communities right across the country to build a long-term, stable, protected future with them as full partners determining how best to do that. That is what the spirit of reconciliation means. That is what this government—

    The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

    Mr. Speaker, nearly 100 years ago, Canadians from all across the country, including many Quebeckers, fought non only in our country's four divisions of soldiers, but also, for the first time, as part of a united Canadian force at Vimy Ridge. This historic moment not only marked a great victory for Canada and allied forces but also showed that our emerging nation was ready to take its place on the international scene.

    How is the Government of Canada going to mark the 100th anniversary of this seminal event for our country?

    Mr. Speaker, the Battle of Vimy Ridge allowed Canada to take its place as a country on solid footing when the four Canadian divisions fought together for the first time to secure a stunning if costly victory.

    Canada will mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge with commemorative ceremonies in France, at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, and in major centres across the country.

    I hope that my colleagues will join me at these solemn commemorative ceremonies.

    Wherever we may be, this is the time for all of us to remember, recognize, and honour the brave men and women who have gone before us.

    Mr. Speaker, in response to an earlier question on autism from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister talked of his government “highlighting the work that we continue to do.” The trouble is, his government is doing the exact opposite.

    In 2015, our government funded a world-class Canadian autism partnership working group. The Liberal budget just rejected the request for funding to allow that critical work to continue.

    Could the Prime Minister please explain how his government can find nearly $400 million for a company that says it does not need it, and not find $4 million a year to help Canadian families living with autism who desperately need it?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his extraordinary advocacy on this file for a very long time. It is one that touches us all, and we all know we do need to work together to do more on it.

    On the issue of funding for Bombardier, we made sure that we are investing in the kinds of things that will lead to good jobs—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I invite the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie and others to calm down and listen to the answer. If everyone talks at the same time, this place cannot function and we all lose the right to do our jobs, so let us finish this.

    The right hon. Prime Minister.

    Mr. Speaker, we have an extraordinary minister who is working on Canada's first-ever accessibility act, which will focus on ensuring that all Canadians of differing abilities and challenges are able to succeed and move forward in an inclusive country that gives everyone a real and fair chance to succeed.

    Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-38 in 2012, we have been labouring under a broken environmental assessment process. Today we have a landmark report from the expert panel on EA, headed by our former commissioner for the environment. It makes a bold recommendation: get rid of the NEB's Environmental Assessment Agency, have a single authority, give it quasi-judicial powers.

    For the Prime Minister, how quickly can we expect this great recommendation to be legislated?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her long-time leadership on environmental issues. We are also very interested in this report that has come forward. We know there is a lot more work to do to improve environmental assessment in this country.

    Without public trust we cannot build the kind of infrastructure projects or the future for our communities that we need. We need to make sure we are demonstrating that we understand that protecting the environment goes hand in hand with building a strong economic future for Canadians, and this report goes right to how we can perhaps do that and do even better.

     I thank the member for her leadership on this matter.

    I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Right Honourable Ken Macintosh, MSP, Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    Mr. Speaker, today's question period was very noisy and emotional. You said that I was being rowdy. I do not profess to be the most circumspect or the quietest—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Joël Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am not the quietest member, but I believe this is a case of mistaken identity.

    Nice try.

    It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, April 3, 2017, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to Motion No. 10 under ways and means proceedings.

    Call in the members.

    I declare the amendment lost.

    I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by eight minutes.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.

    Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

    The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Speaker: Before I call in the members, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: “That, given proposals articulated during the October 6, 2016, take-note debate on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, a special committee be constituted to conduct a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House of Commons as follows: (a) that the review be divided into four parts as follows: 1. management of debate, 2. management of the House and its meetings, 3. management of committees, and 4. management of parliamentary groups; (b) that committee members submit their list of proposed witnesses to the Clerk no later than seven calendar days following the adoption of this motion; (c) that the committee may meet outside of regular meeting hours, if any, to complete its review by the date indicated in item (i); (d) that the committee consist of 12 members, which shall include five members from the government party, three members from the official opposition, two members from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party of Canada member; (e) that changes to the membership of the committee be effective immediately after notification by the Whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House; (f) that membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); (g) that, with the exception of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, all other members shall be named by their respective Whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion; (h) that the committee be chaired by a member of the government party; that, in addition to the chair, there be one vice-chair from the official opposition and one vice-chair from the New Democratic Party, and that all candidates for the position of chair or vice-chair from the official opposition shall be elected by secret ballot, and that each candidate be permitted to address the committee for not more than three minutes; (i) that the quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118, provided that at least four members are present and provided that one member from the government party and one member from an opposition party are present; (j) that the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada; (k) that the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings; (l) that, at the conclusion of the review of House procedures and practices, the Committee will only make recommendations to the House that enjoy the support of all the members of the committee; and (m) that the Committee complete its report and present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than June 16, 2017.

    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Speaker: Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    Mr. Speaker, I know the government has its reasons for wanting to move past routine proceedings, but one of the unfortunate consequences is that a particular time of day that allows MPs to represent their constituents gets blown past.

    Could we have unanimous consent to return to the rubric of presenting petitions?

    Is there unanimous consent?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

     I have been surprised recently by the comments emanating from Quebec's political circles. People have been criticizing the work of the federal Liberals regarding the budget presented by my colleague from Toronto Centre, the hon. Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau. I would like to begin by reassuring Quebec and all Quebeckers—

    I would remind the hon. member that we do not mention other members by name in the House. He may continue his speech.

    Mr. Speaker, I would first like to assure Quebec and all Quebeckers, on my own personal behalf as well as that of every Liberal member from Quebec, I am sure, that we are there for them. We fight tooth and nail every day for Quebec's interests, businesses, people and infrastructure projects, whose financing is already in the honourable Minister of Finance's budget for this year, as it was last year.

    This year, our government will establish the Canada infrastructure bank. With a budget of $35 billion, the bank will focus on public transportation networks and electricity grid interconnections. I see on page 120 of the budget that the Government of Canada will provide financial support for REM, the réseau électrique métropolitain, a Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec project.

    Other projects that the Government of Quebec is eager to move on are the Quebec City bus rapid transit system and the Montreal metro blue line east extension. These projects align well with our government's plan to implement green projects under bilateral agreements. The Government of Canada will pay provinces up to $9.2 billion for priority projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions or contribute to the development of clean and better-connected electricity grids.

     Also, many other projects approved and under way give Quebec access to $7.2 billion under the Building Canada plan 2014-24. In budget 2016, under phase 1 of the infrastructure plan, Quebec was quick to sign agreements allowing it to receive $2.7 billion by 2021.

    The Canada Infrastructure Bank will also have a $300-million supplementary fund for creating smart cities in Canada. That should make the mayor of Montreal happy.

    In sum, as far as the work of the federal Liberal caucus is concerned, I will say to my fellow Quebeckers and those who are concerned about our work that we are defending the interests of Quebec, as evidenced by the very many projects that are currently getting funding from the Government of Canada.

    People like me who are naturalized Canadians never stop revelling in the natural beauty of this country. We are blessed to be able to enjoy such a vast and beautiful country. Our government wants to preserve this beautiful nature, eliminate sources of pollution, and preserve natural areas. That makes sense. To love this country is to preserve it and help it flourish.

    That is why it is only logical that we invest $21.9 billion in green infrastructure over the next 10 years. I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for his vision and national perspective, as well as for his global vision. South of the border, there is a great deal of uncertainty .

    The American President intends to make major tax cuts, and we still do not know what impact that will have. We do not know what will happen with NAFTA. We also do not know what impact American infrastructure projects will have on this side of the border.

    There is also a lot of uncertainty with regard to Europe. What impact will Britain's departure from the European Union have and how will that affect the comprehensive economic trade agreement that Canada just signed with the European Union? What will be the outcome of the presidential election in France?

    At times, it seems the uncertainties never end. The hon. Minister of Finance, however, took all of these things into account in order to develop an intelligent, prudent budget. He also developed a budget that gives hope to our future generations by including more measures to help the middle class and those who want to join it.

    It therefore comes as no surprise that this budget benefits young people, workers, and businesses wanting to prepare for the structural changes that are on the horizon. Emerging technologies are going to drastically change the workforce. This upheaval was discussed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where it was said that the level of job loss will wash over us like a tsunami or an avalanche.

    We want to increase the share of green technologies in Canada's GDP. Indigenous peoples are not being left behind. Next year there will be programs with $4 billion in funding to help build and renovate housing and water treatment systems and make improvements to sanitation facilities and indigenous community infrastructure.

    As far as health is concerned, we now know that Canada has concluded agreements with all the provinces to transfer $10.6 billion over 10 years to support home care and prevent mental health problems.

    Budget 2017 would make a $7-billion investment to create 40,000 child care spaces in Canada by 2027. Countless other tax measures are included in this budget. They affect our way of life and our future. Every one of us as Canadians has reason to be proud when we look at this budget in detail because it looks to the future with confidence. This budget is not driven by numbers, it is driven by a vision, a hope, and a desire to make a positive contribution for future generations.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the eloquence with which it was delivered.

    However, I disagree with the substance of his remarks. The president of the Quebec treasury board, the hon. Pierre Moreau, had some harsh words for these Liberal members. Just two days ago, Quebec's Liberal minister of health and social services, Dr. Gaétan Barrette, had some harsh words of his own for the Liberal members.

    The member spoke earlier about the mayor of Montreal. Need I remind him that the mayor still does not understand why the government eliminated the public transit tax credit in its budget. The mayor is wondering why the government eliminated this tax credit when it is trying to encourage people to use public transit and is investing billions of dollars in public transit infrastructure.

    The member is well aware that he was elected a year and a half ago on a platform that promised to balance the budget in 2019.

    My question is simple. When will Canada balance its budget?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for his question.

    A single thing stood out to me in his comments, and that was when he said that the government is investing. That is true. We are investing in our green infrastructure. We are investing in protecting the environment. We are investing in the construction of affordable housing. We are investing to improve the situation and lives of our seniors. Yes, we are investing and we will continue to do so in order to improve the lives of Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval—Les Îles for his comments on the 2017-27 budget, which makes very few investments now, but announces many investments that will be made by some indeterminate future government.

    Naturally, I find it hard to share his enthusiasm for how the Liberal members have been defending Quebec's interests. For instance, there is nothing in the budget on Montreal's réseau électrique métropolitain or the high-frequency train project. Furthermore, and probably to pay for those projects, the budget announced the infrastructure bank, in which the government will invest $35 billion that it does not have.

    My question is very simple. Where will that $35 billion come from? From privatizing our airports?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

    I can assure my colleague that we will continue to stand up for Quebec, as we are doing now, and much more than our friends across the aisle did. We take Quebec's interests to heart. Indeed, 40 members from Quebec work day and night to improve the lives of Quebec citizens.

    I can give several examples of this. We gave Bombardier a loan to safeguard over 4,000 jobs in Quebec. We are currently working on extending the Montreal metro's green line. We are helping the Government of Quebec by transferring funds to the provincial department of health and social services in order to improve our seniors' quality of life. We announced a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors. We care about Canadians and Quebeckers. The 40 members who represent Quebec are looking out for Quebec's interests.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

    Access to the Internet and digital technology remains a problem in Canada. Does the budget provide for initiatives to improve the situation?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent question.

    Many Canadians do not use the Internet very often because they do not have the necessary digital literacy skills. The budget provides $50 million for measures to improve their skills and help their children learn coding. Non-profit organizations have access to $30 million to teach basic skills to seniors and the most vulnerable. There is $22.3 million in the budget to improve access to the Internet for the disabled. We are proud of that.

    It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Consumer Protection; the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Ethics.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to budget 2017. I want to address key parts of the budget that I know will have an important and lasting impact on my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto.

    Since October 2015, I have heard loud and clear from my constituents about the issues that matter to them most, and I know that this budget would go a long way toward addressing those issues.

     I want to start with housing. I want to discuss our government's historic investment and plan to address affordable housing. One of the most important issues to residents in my riding is access to housing. Since being elected, I have heard about housing when canvassing at the doors of my constituents, in meetings at my office, and during visits to various co-ops in Parkdale—High Park. We have five such entities: Dufferin Grove, Swansea Village, Howard Park, Spencer Avenue, and the John Bruce Village.

    In meetings with the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, I have also heard about the important need for housing, and in particular about the critical need to ensure affordable housing stocks in our cities.

    Last week, on March 29, I held a standing-room-only town hall in my riding on this very issue. I heard first-hand from residents about the importance of our government resolving the affordable housing issue and about working with local partners, such as the Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust, to make that happen.

    I have heard these concerned citizens in my community, and I have responded by advocating, together with members of our Toronto caucus and our Ontario caucus, loudly, frequently, and with passion that we must get housing right. Why? It is because housing is foundational. What I mean by that is that if we address Canadians' housing needs, our residents will have better health and better educational and economic outcomes.

     I am proud to say that advocacy on behalf of my constituents has produced results. What am I referring to? I am referring to budget 2017 and its historic investment of $11 billion this year alone in housing. On top of the base funding of $4 billion, this brings the total to $15 billion our government has committed over the past two years alone to the much-needed national housing strategy. This will mean access to more affordable housing for residents in Parkdale—High Park.

    The $15 billion would include some of the following investments.

     There would be $5 billion for the national housing fund to address critical housing issues and to prioritize support for vulnerable citizens. This is important, because the priority would be seniors, indigenous persons, survivors fleeing situations of domestic violence, people with disabilities, people dealing with mental health and addiction issues, and veterans.

    There would be $3.2 billion dedicated to a renewal of federal and provincial partnerships on affordable housing. There would be $2.1 billion dedicated to expanding and extending the homelessness partnering strategy, and there would be $202 million dedicated to making federal lands available for affordable housing developments.

    The next thing I want to discuss on budget 2017 is its impact on families and child care. I am a husband and a father of two young children. My riding of Parkdale—High Park is home to countless families just like mine. These families have reached out to me to laud our government for taking as one of our very first actions measures to cut taxes on Canada's middle class. They have also welcomed the Canada child benefit, a once-in-a-generation type of change that targets tax-free benefits, on a proportional scale, to those raising kids who need the help the most.

    For those raising children in my community, and communities around the country, our 2016 budget provided an initial $500 million for early learning and child care. Building on this, budget 2017 would invest an additional $7 billion to support the creation of high-quality child care spaces across Canada. This would mean up to 40,000 new subsidized child care spaces in this country. I know what this would mean for my riding of Parkdale—High Park. It would mean more options for parents who are fed up with signing up on literally dozens of child care waiting lists the moment they conceive a child. That is what it has come to in my riding and in ridings around this country.

    What the budget means and what this investment would mean is a greater supply of much-needed day care spots so that more parents would be able to return to work and return to work sooner. This unprecedented investment would address the supply of spaces and help drive down costs by boosting the number of subsidized spots.

    Budget 2017 would do more for families raising kids. We have also fulfilled our campaign commitment to introduce more flexibility and provide greater choice for parents on parental leave. These proposed changes would allow parents to choose to receive their current benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months, allowing them to spend more time with their kids in their early, tender years.

    The third area I want to talk about is women and gender parity. The impact of budget 2017 on women would be profound. It is the first budget in Canada's history to include a gender statement. The statement shows the impact of programs, across government lines, on women. It reflects directly, in a clear and tangible manner, our commitment on this side of the House to ensure that the goal of gender equality permeates every single thing we do as a federal government.

    On top of our historic child care investment, women deserve to feel safe, supported, and protected in our communities. I was proud to see $100.9 million allocated in budget 2017 to establishing a national strategy to address gender-based violence.

    In the past, I have been involved, in my riding, with a shelter called The Redwood. It is a shelter for women and children fleeing domestic violence. In my involvement with The Redwood, I have seen the amazing work being done in my community, but I have also seen first-hand the critical need for investments and resources to end gender-based violence. Budget 2017 is a start in moving toward that important goal.

    Budget 2017 would also dedicate critical funding for women abroad. I am doubly proud that our government has endorsed the Dutch initiative. We would be dedicating $650 million in international aid to educating women and girls and to empowering women to maintain control over their reproductive rights. This aid, particularly at this point in time globally, is critical.

    Fourth, I want to address the budget in terms of its impact on indigenous persons. The budget would serve the important objective of reconciliation, a goal of our government and of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. It would build on the significant investments in budget 2016 of over $8 billion. The budget would continue our important work, making commitments to first nations, Inuit, and Métis that demonstrate a new nation-to-nation relationship.

    What would the budget do? Budget 2017 commits to establishing a new fiscal relationship that would lift the 2% cap on annual funding increases. Budget 2017 would provide $225 million to provide access to affordable and culturally appropriate housing for indigenous peoples living off reserve. It would dedicate $300 million to the construction of housing in Canada's north, and $225 million on top of that would be dedicated to housing providers who serve indigenous peoples not living on reserves. We have also dedicated $828 million to improving health for first nation and Inuit people, including $305 million for the non-insured health benefits program.

    Over the last year, we have lifted 18 long-term drinking water advisories in first nations communities, and we are on track to eliminate all such advisories by March 2021. We would be investing $4 billion to improve housing, water treatment systems, health care facilities, and community infrastructure, in partnership with first nations and Inuit.

    Very importantly, mental health services for first nations and Inuit would get an injection of $204 million to improve mental health services, $118 million for mental health programming, and $86 million for the non-insured health benefits program.

    In my remaining time I want to underscore the important initiatives in the budget that would help the most vulnerable. I am most proud of these provisions. I am talking about low-income families.

     We would dedicate $13 million to provide affordable Internet access for low-income families.

    Regarding refugees, I served as a parliamentary secretary for immigration. I was very proud to do so. I hear constantly from my constituents about having an open, compassionate, and welcoming system, one that is fair and accessible for all. We would improve that access by dedicating $62 million to legal aid for asylum seekers.

    The budget would double the funds for the security infrastructure program. It would serve those people who are victims of hatred. In times of rising division and in a climate of hatred and bigotry, our government would commit hard dollars to protect those who want safety when they are worshipping.

    The budget would also protect newcomers, in terms of their integration, by dedicating $27 million to foreign credential recognition.

    Why am I standing here? It is because the budget addresses housing, indigenous persons, women and families, and vulnerable Canadians. I am proud to represent the residents of Parkdale—High Park in supporting the budget. I urge all members of the House to do the same.

    Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate helping those who are less fortunate who need to be assisted. However, I have a few questions for the member.

    He focused a lot on the housing initiatives, yet the majority of the housing initiatives do not start until 2022. If this is so critical, why is it not going to be done until five years from now?

    Second, there is money being invested in available federal land. We know that the list is not available, yet there is money allocated to this list for work that was supposed to be done in 2016. It is now 2017, and the list is still outstanding. Why is there money being put away for something that does not even exist? Also, on such a critical issue, why are the Liberals not investing the majority of this housing fund for five years?

    Mr. Speaker, I have two responses to the member's question.

    First of all, it is inaccurate to portray this budget or this government's commitment as one that is delayed, or speculative, for future years. We started out with a commitment of nearly $2 billion for housing in budget 2016. The funds dedicated now are for a long-term strategy.

    Second, it is critical to underscore that every stakeholder that has approached us has said that we need a long-term plan, that we need a guarantee of funds being allocated on a yearly basis so that planning can occur, so that forward-thinking can occur, on a long-term basis. That is what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has asked for. That is what housing stakeholders have asked for. That is what we are delivering through a 10-year plan that will help us create a national housing strategy, including $15 billion in aggregate funding that has been announced over the last two years.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I completely agree with him on the urgent need for social housing. We witnessed it when the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities toured Canada as part of its study on poverty. We went to Toronto, where people told us just how great and pressing the need for housing is.

    I want to emphasize this because even though we are pleased with the $11 billion for housing in the budget, we see that 90% of the funds will be disbursed after 2019, 50% after 2024, and $1 million will be committed in the upcoming year. That is the proposal that has been made, and it falls short of meeting current needs.

    If there are mistakes in the budget as it was presented to us, the Liberals should let us know and correct them.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way and the work that she does here in the House as a member.

    I would like to reiterate what I said earlier. We talked to a lot of organizations, residents, and people who work in the field. They asked us first for a national housing strategy and second for a long-term vision to develop that strategy.

    They did not want us to invest large sums right out of the gate, but rather to set up a very stable system over 10 years. That is what we heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and that is what we delivered in this budget.

    If we decided to expand the period, it was so that, for the first time in 25 years, we could have a system to develop a national housing strategy.

    Mr. Speaker, many communities worked hard through the consultations this past year when the budget was about to be announced. We heard loud and clear about the need for environmental strategies. We heard loud and clear about social strategies and the need for a national transportation strategy and an infrastructure strategy to satisfy a lot of the recommendations coming forward at the local level, the grassroots level, for community improvement and growth plans. This year's 2017 budget identifies and recognizes a lot of those comments we heard.

    Could the member give us some feedback on how sustainable this funding will be well into the future?

    Mr. Speaker, the importance of this budget is that it looks at different streams, different government programs, and understands how to synchronize them to work toward the same goal. The sustainability point the member mentioned is a critical part of this goal.

    For example, when we look at housing, whether it is in first nations communities or in downtown Toronto, what we are looking at and trying to promote through requests for proposals is green infrastructure housing. We are looking at greener initiatives that are sustainable for the long term to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address all the concerns that have been raised by my colleague.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand on behalf of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and the New Democrats to speak about the hits and misses in the 2017 federal budget.

    I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona.

    On affordable housing, there is a huge built-up demand, a great need, both on pricing and on volume. There is only $20 million in affordable housing for 2017 and, reading the fine print, 90% of the money for housing will not go out the door until after the next election.

    On home energy retrofits, we hear repeatedly that voters, homeowners, renovators, and small businesses want incentives to reduce emissions, enable households to save electricity, and get people to work doing these renovations. This is a good, local, sustainable job-creation exercise. The budget does not include any allowance for the home energy retrofit program.

    For 15 years in my seat in local government before I was elected here, I have been advocating for federal leadership on abandoned vessels. There was a big announcement by the federal government in November, but there are zero dollars in this budget to deal with abandoned vessels. This weekend I am meeting with community leaders elected on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast in British Columbia, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities. They were hoping I would have some good news specifically about how we will be partnering and funding community work to remove the oil spill risks posed by abandoned vessels. There is zero in the budget for them.

    The transit tax rebate is another disappointment in my region. It made the daily use of public transit a little more affordable for bus riders, but it also made public transit a little more affordable in ferry-dependent communities, such as the one that I represent, as well as Gabriola Island, where I live. Lots of commuters go back and forth every day. That was a way to help make ends meet and to accommodate the tremendously high, way-beyond-inflation, fare increases that have been brought in under the British Columbia Liberal Party over the last 14 years. Inflation, in some cases, is almost as high as 10%. That transit tax rebate program has been cut in this budget to save $170 million.

    We say instead that if the government were really serious about closing tax loopholes, it would have kept its election promise and closed the CEO stock option loophole, which would have provided $750 million in revenue every year. Instead, inexplicably, yesterday in question period, the representative for the finance minister said that this tax rebate was used disproportionately by wealthy people. It boggles the mind, honestly. The transit tax rebate was cut to save $170 million on the backs of working people. It is extremely disappointing. It is not leadership and not walking the talk on either the middle class or climate change.

    There was a huge need expressed for home care that I heard daily when knocking on doors throughout the federal election campaign. The Liberals promised $3 billion over four years. Instead, this budget commits $2.25 billion over four years. It is one year late and 25% short, and that again is on the backs of families.

    For coastal communities, I really thought, given the government's election promises, that there would be commitments around salmon enhancement and the implementation of the Cohen commission recommendations, every single one of which the government said it would implement. There is nothing in the budget for salmon, which are at the foundation of indigenous communities on the original settlement pattern on the coast and which, in our modern economy, are so much at the root of tourism and commercial and recreational fisheries.

    The opioid crisis has hit the community of Nanaimo particularly hard. There were more deaths per capita than anywhere else in British Columbia in the early part of this crisis, I think, because of drug dealers testing out this bad product and using my community as a test market. It is no fault of the community, but the community and our firefighters and first responders sure are taking the brunt of it.

    This budget allocates $110 million to the entire drug and substance strategy over the next five years. The Conservatives had planned to spend $556 million on their anti-drug strategy over the same period, and honestly, it is a sad day when the Conservatives are spending more on drug treatment and the opioid emergency than the Liberals are. It is stunning, really.

    As well, the budget fails to allocate a single dime in emergency funding for the opioid crisis, as my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, has pointed out. It is unacceptable. To think that the opioid crisis is over is not supported by the evidence. Let us say it that way. The crisis is getting worse, if anything, and there is nothing allocated. There is $14 million this year for the entire drug strategy across the whole country, whereas last year $16 million was spent by the federal government in B.C. and Alberta alone.

    Regarding small business, again it is a big disappointment to see the government continuing to dishonour its election promise to lower the small business tax rate. Small businesses are our job generators and are a huge part of the Nanaimo—Ladysmith economy hub.

    There is also nothing to reduce the unfair credit card merchant fees that gouge small businesses and raise costs for consumers.

    As for people living with disabilities, the Liberals have once again ignored loud and clear calls to make the disability tax credit refundable to ensure that it provides the support that low-income individuals need.

    Then we move to the gender budget. There were big headlines on this issue, and a lot of expectations were raised. In fact, the budget named dozens of barriers women face, but it did not actually implement very many solutions for them. The budget mentions the word “women” 274 times, but there is very little action taken.

    With regard to murdered and missing indigenous women, no money is allocated in the 2017 budget for implementation of the inquiry's work. As for violence against women, the offer is $20 million a year over the next five years for federal services. This is only a little more than the government is committing to space exploration. NGOs had asked for $500 million a year, and some of that would go to the operators of domestic violence shelters, who, with no support from the current government, are doing very good work on the part of the country to shelter women and children escaping domestic violence.

    For addressing pay equity, there are zero dollars. For child care, there are zero dollars last year and this year for any child care spaces. This is quite different from the New Democrat election promise of $1.2 billion in new investments that would have happened this year, which during the election campaign the Liberals said was too little and too slow. It is a head-shaker.

    I like the idea of extending parental leave. That is good for families and it is good for women. However, the government did not commit any new dollars, so again only the wealthiest families, those who can afford to live on one-third of their salary, are able to take the full benefit.

    Regarding unpaid care work, there is also a good general direction, but many female caregivers will not qualify, because they do not have a high enough income to qualify for this tax break. As well, the Liberals are delivering less than they promised in their platform.

    We are also disappointed that the Liberals failed to use the budget opportunity to close the problem that we identified around the Canada pension plan expansion. Doing so would have helped women and people living with disabilities so that they would not be penalized.

    Indigenous children, again, are left behind. There is just $155 million, to come into compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Again, it is such a betrayal of the government's promises that it does not specifically allocate money in this budget.

    In closing, many Canadians are struggling with part-time and precarious employment, rising costs, and record debt, and they were hoping that this budget would lift them all up. Instead it looks like a tremendous amount of government spending without any effect on people on the ground, in their lives, this year, right now.

    I urge the government to reconsider, to make its budget more generous and bring it more in line with its election promises.

    Mr. Speaker, putting aside that in Toronto the transit tax did not do a thing for the lowest 40% of the income earners who had monthly passes, but was a tax break for the highest 60%. It did nothing for the poorest of the poor, those who paid the single fare. What we had was a tax proposed by Jack Layton, and adopted by Stephen Harper that gave tax breaks to the rich, and made the poorest people in Toronto pay full fare. That is their idea of equity. I will not address that. I think it stands on its own merit.

    On the housing file, this is an insane analysis of the funding budget. I know it is a new member speaking to the House, but there is $4.8 billion in the base funding for housing that is present this year. While it starts to phase-out over time, the $11 billion phases-in, so the entire 10-year program has a steady, predictable, annual funding allotment locked in with the provinces, and it will be passed by Parliament after they sign the agreement.

    Why does the NDP not support long-term funding? I realize New Democrats wanted to balance the budget first and then housing. This funds housing now. On that note, we are spending $30 million on housing this year, and in the city of Toronto $154 million. That is two years' worth of funding delivered last July. That money is building housing, repairing housing, and subsidizing housing as we speak. It was not there with the Conservatives. It is here with this government. That party voted against the $154 million, and told low income Canadians who live in Toronto that they could go fend for themselves.

    Why will New Democrats not support solid housing programming that pays for housing now and for the next 10 years? It is a historic investment. Why can they not support housing?

    Mr. Speaker, I really wish the member opposite would not patronize members in the House. We are both doing our work for the first time. There is no need for the hon. member to belittle me for only having been elected for a year and a half just as he was.

    Regarding the cut of the tax credit, if we were to look at #transittaxcredit, we would see all kinds of people describing, across the whole country, that if individuals bought a transit pass, they would be able to claim it against their income. Certainly, people in my community who were working at the hospital, who were back and forth on the ferry every day, were saving hundreds of dollars every year and more. In my region, the evidence does not support that this was a benefit for wealthy people riding on the bus. It is crazy.

    There is no way around the member's argument. The affordable housing offer is not as rich as what the Liberals promised, and most of it is offered after the next election. It is extreme arrogance to make promises with taxpayers' money for a period in which the voters have not supported the government spending their money.

    Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in the hon. member's comments on the opioid crisis that is occurring in this country. I sit on the health committee, and we had an emergency study on the opioid crisis. According to the RCMP, 98% of opioids that come into this country come from China, and yet, the government seems to be doing nothing with respect to dealing with China on this particular issue.

     I have constantly asked questions, whether it is in question period here or in the health committee, with regard to how the Liberals are dealing with China on this issue.

    What does the hon. member think should be done, and perhaps the Liberals can take some advice from you on what you think should be done about China bringing in all these opioids?

    I am sure the hon. member meant the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and not me the Speaker.

    The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

    Mr. Speaker, our first priority on the NDP side is with front-line responders: ambulance, firefighters, the people who are dealing with this crisis every day.

    In my own community, Mid-Island Hiv Aids Society has trained 800 volunteers on how to use naloxone. The human commitment to alleviating the suffering is tremendous. We certainly want to see the federal government doing everything it can to support front-line workers, doing everything it can to keep drugs out of the country, and to keep the drugs from being made illegally with pill presses and so on.

    Again, we want to see spending now to get ahead of this crisis. It has a huge human cost. I am stunned to have heard from my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway that this budget offer is an 80% reduction over what the Conservatives had planned to spend. Another real problem is that the $110 million is mostly backloaded into future spending years. We need to spend it now.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and address the government's budget. It is a budget that the hon. member for Outremont and leader of the NDP rightly called the “we'll get around to it” budget. In part he called it that because if we look at the budget, the columns for this year for various initiatives are filled with zeros. The government is clearly not doing it now, so presumably it will get around to it. We will see about that. That is from the present.

     However, he was also making a historical comment about the typical behaviour of Liberal governments. He cited the example of the Chrétien-Martin era. A lot of promises were made in the red book in 1993, for instance, around a national pharmacare plan and doing something with respect to child care. Come the time the Liberals were ultimately defeated in 2006, they were still saying, “just one more election and we're going to get to it” and “It's coming.” They had the audacity, frankly, to be indignant about the fact that they were defeated after 13 years of government and some pretty unsavoury stories coming out of the Gomery commission saying that there were things that Canadians needed, that they really wanted the opportunity to do them, and shame on other parties for having observed they were not getting around to it and maybe it was time to replace them.

     Therefore, given that historical context, one has every reason to look at that behaviour, and at this budget, and worry that this government is not serious about getting around to the things that need to be done.

    A good example is the housing file. If we look down the column, it is filled with zeros for this year. Of course, there are promises of big money, that it is coming but we have to hang on. In 2023 things will be really great, we will have spent multiple billions of dollars, and that by 2027 that will have doubled. I submit to the House that this is not really a good way of making policy. It certainly is not a good way of doing politics. It is sort of starting an arms race of who can announce money further into the future.

    What we are concerned about, and I think Canadians and people in Elmwood—Transcona are concerned about as well, is having the government allocate resources and funds to its priorities now, not 10 or 20 years from now. If we make a habit of getting into announcing money further into the future just to have bigger, more impressive numbers, there is no reason why we should not be talking about $40 billion by 2039 or $50 billion by 2047. If we wanted to get really polemic, we might announce a trillion dollars by the year 2100.

     This game of simply announcing money further into the future to make it look as though the Liberals are taking action on priorities today is not the right way of doing politics. It is not a good way of doing policy for that matter. That is not to say that we cannot have long-term deals, but those deals have to include some action today. There is no guarantee that one, or two or three elections from now the government of the day will honour those deals. Therefore, if the government wants to show its sincerity with respect to taking action on the priorities of Canadians, it is important it spends some money today. That certainly was promised by the Liberals in the last election, but it is not delivering that with this budget.

    Child care is a great example. The Liberals talk big numbers on child care. If we look at the amount of aid that will got to working Canadian families that need child care so they can report to work and have confidence that their kids are in a safe place with well-trained staff, the number is zero. That is a strange way for the Liberals to treat their priorities.

     Incidentally, I have noticed this is a feature of the government. A number of things have happened, for instance, undermining the lawsuit of Air Canada maintenance workers who wanted to keep their jobs in Canada. That was not mentioned as a priority of the government, but it certainly got done. There have been other examples of things that were done in the House that were not talked about in the election. The things that are not being done are the things that were promised. Therefore, the lesson here is, God forbid we become a priority of the Liberal government because we would wither on the vine.

    The things that corporate CEOs bring to the government, which the Liberals did not talk about during the election, are going to get the priority. That is the list people want to be on, if they are rich enough to get on it. That lesson is evident in this budget.

    Canadian workers who have been laid off in the economic slowdown might be one of the six out of 10 Canadians who cannot access the EI fund. There is nothing in the budget that talks about changing the eligibility rules to allow more workers who have been laid off to access that money to make their mortgage payments, to put food on the table, and to keep a roof over their head while they look for new employment.

     Canadians are owed that, particularly when we consider that successive Liberal and Conservative governments stole money out of the EI fund. Workers paid into that fund in case they needed it in these circumstances. It is shameful to see, once again, that ordinary working Canadians are being asked to wait, being told by the Liberals that they will get around to it, maybe if they are elected two, three, or four more times, 15 to 16 years sounds about right.

    The corporate lobby bandwagon might have slowed down by then and then the Liberals will get around to the priorities of Canadians. We have seen this with the veterans. There is nothing in the budget about restoring lifetime pensions for veterans, which was a promise of the Liberals during the campaign. They are being asked to wait.

    On defence spending, the Liberals are taking money that was allocated for defence spending and back-ending it. It was not enough to just back-end the new money. The Liberals looked at the budget and noted that there was old money that was not back-ended. They could correct that by taking it out of the budget and back-ending it. Never mind the fact that the Canadian military needs new equipment now to do its job properly and safely.

    The Liberals have not been content with just back-ending new money. They want to back-end the old money as well. They are doing this in the context where through Bill C-27, and a couple of other examples I would mention if I had time, they are mounting an attack on the pensions of Canadian workers. We saw it a bit with the CPP not including the dropout provisions for women and people with disabilities. Incidentally, if people take advantage of their extended parental leave, which is just extra time with no extra money, the same amount of money they would have had over the course of a year stretched over 18 months, they are then penalized on the next tier of CPP that the Liberals were so proud to have brought in because they did not include the dropout provisions for women and people with disabilities.

    Even when the Liberals are trying to do something right, they just cannot seem to help themselves. They have to do something to throw a monkey wrench into it, particularly when it comes to pensions. If people need any evidence at all, Bill C-27, sitting on the Order Paper, is all the evidence they need to know that the government is not committed to real pensions for Canadian workers. Shame on it for that.

    How do the Liberals do all this? How do they go to seniors and say, “sorry, there is nothing in the budget for you”, even though a national pharmacare plan would actually save money for Canadian taxpayers, but they cannot be bothered to do it? They tell seniors that they do not have the money to do it. Meanwhile, a Liberal priority in the election, and as I said earlier, God forbid we become a Liberal priority, was to close the CEO stock option loophole, something worth over $750 million of revenue to the government each year. It was a priority during the election, so it is not getting done.

    Then the Liberals have the nerve to turn around to Canadian workers and tell them that there is no money for them when it comes to pharmacare, expanding EI, investing in child care. They just say that they do not have the money, because Bay Street showed up and said that it did not like the idea of being taxed fairly so the Liberals backed right off.

    When it comes to sweetheart tax haven deals with Barbados and other countries that allow corporate CEOs to hide their money offshore, the Liberals are not taking any action. It is easier to go to Canadian workers who do not have the same power and the same say as CEOs and tell them to wait, to tighten their belts. That is what is shameful about this budget.

    When we hear about the CRA giving amnesty to Canada's richest and worst tax cheats, when that revenue could be used to invest in those services that working Canadians actually need, it is easier for the Liberals to tell those working Canadians to wait.

    Shame on the Liberals for having so little for Canadian workers, because they are not willing to stand up to those who should be paying their fair share. It is not enough to tell Canadian workers to tighten their belt when the money is out there.

    Mr. Speaker, if members turn to page 131, they will see that in last year's budget $500 million was projected into this year for child care. After that, $7 billion was projected for new federal, provincial, territorial framework agreements with indigenous communities. That is money this year and money for the next seven years, and it is locked in with an accord, just like the housing money that is locked in with an accord.

    The money is going to last past this election and it is going to be back loaded, according to their math, because 80% comes after the next election. Eight years afer the next election there still will be money flowing to cities, municipalities, villages, towns, provinces, territories, and indigenous communities, close to $20 billion over 10 years. It is not back-end loaded. We have parsed it out in 10-year instalments. There are two years until the next election, so 20% is in the first two years and 80% is in the next eight years. That is the way the math works. The money is here this year. It was doubled-up last year. The money will be there next year and every year thereafter. This is a national housing strategy.

    When will the NDP get engaged in debating this budget and not the Chrétien-Martin budgets? If those members want to build a time machine, there is money in the budget for technology and innovation, so they can go build a time machine. We are building housing. Why will they not help us?

    Mr. Speaker, we will stop talking about the Chrétien-Martin government when those members stop acting like the Chrétien-Martin government.

    As far as the member's discussion of the budget, I find the budget tables more convincing than the budget prose.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sees the extended parental leave as a wash, while some people have referred to it as a benefit. I wonder if he could clarify this. If we do the extrapolation of that extended parental leave benefit, 18 months at 33% versus 12 months at 55%, it actually works out to a 10% reduction if the longer term is taken. Could the member comment on that benefit?

    Mr. Speaker, it is hard to name it a benefit when people will receive less money to get through a longer period of time. The flexibility is nice if the money is already in the bank. However, most working families do not already have the money in the bank and they cannot afford to take a 10% pay cut in order to stay home for an extra six months even though they might like to.

    The fact is that on top of that 10% pay cut in the immediate future, people need to think about the long-term cut they will take to their CPP benefits because they do not have dropout provisions for the second tier the government brought in.

     It being 5:23 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of ways and means Motion No. 10.

    The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): In my opinion the yeas have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Louis-Hébert to Motion No. 105 under private members' business.